Evidence
Heirs of Demetria Lacsa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 79597-98, May 20, 1991
FACTS:
Civil Case No. G-1190 is an action for recovery of possession filed by herein
petitioners, the heirs of Demetria Lacsa, against Aurelio Songco and John Doe based on the
principal allegations that petitioners are heirs of deceased Demetria Lacsa who, during her
lifetime, was the owner of a certain parcel of land consisting partly of a fishpond and partly
of uncultivated open space, located in Guagua, evidenced by OCT No. RO-1038 (11725).
Civil Case No. G-1332 is an action also by herein petitioners against private
respondents before the same lower court for cancellation of title and ownership, based on the
allegations that they are the heirs of Demetria Lacsa who was the owner of the land also
involved in Civil Case No. G-1190; that on 31 October 1923 and 15 March 1924, by
presenting to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga certain forged and absolutely simulated
documents, namely: "TRADUCCION AL CASTELLANO DE LA ESCRITURA DE
PARTICION EXTRAJUDICIAL" and "ESCRITURA DE VENTA ABSOLUTA",
respectively, and by means of false pretenses and misrepresentation, Inocencio Songco, the
private respondents' predecessor-in-interest, succeeded in transferring the title to said
property in his name.
Private respondents denied the material allegations of both complaints and alleged as
special and affirmative defenses, petitioners' lack of cause of action, for the reason that
Original Certificate of Title No. RO-1038 (11725) was merely a reconstituted copy issued in
April 1983 upon petitioners' expedient claim that the owner's duplicate copy thereof had been
missing when the truth of the matter was that OCT No. RO-1038 (11725) in the name of
Demetria Lacsa, had long been cancelled and superseded by TCT No. 794 in the name of
Alberta Guevarra and Juan Limpin by virtue of the document entitled "TRADUCCION AL
CASTELLANO DE LA ESCRITURA DE PARTICION EXTRA-JUDICIAL" entered into by
the heirs of Demetria Lacsa; that the latter TCT was in turn superseded by TCT No. 929
issued in the name of Inocencio Songco (father of private respondents) by virtue of a
document entitled "ESCRITURA DE VENTA ABSOLUTA" executed by spouses Juan
Limpin and Alberta Guevarra in favor of said Inocencio Songo.
The lower court thus held that the fishpond in question belongs to the private
respondents, having been inherited by them from their deceased father Inocencio Songco.
It is submitted by petitioners that under this rule, for a document to be classified as an
"ancient document", it must not only be at least thirty (30) years old but it must also be found
in the proper custody and is unblemished by alterations and is otherwise free from
suspicion. Thus, according to petitioners, exhibits "3" and "7", entitled "Traduccion Al
Castellano de la Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial" and "Escritura de Venta Absoluta",
respectively, can not qualify under the foregoing rule, for the reason that since the "first
pages" of said documents do not bear the signatures of the alleged parties thereto, this
constitutes an indelible blemish that can beget unlimited alterations.
ISSUE:
Was the ancient document rule properly applied in this case?
RULING:
YES. Under the "ancient document rule," for a private ancient document to be exempt
from proof of due execution and authenticity, it is not enough that it be more than thirty (30)
Evidence
years old; it is also necessary that the following requirements are fulfilled; (1) that it is
produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and (2) that it is
unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion.
The first document, Exhibit "3", entitled 'Traduccion Al Castellano de la Escritura de
Particion Extrajudicial" was executed on 7 April 1923 whereas the second document, exhibit
"7", entitled "Escritura de Venta Absoluta" was executed on 20 January 1924. These
documents are, therefore, more than thirty (30) years old. Both copies of the aforementioned
documents were certified as exact copies of the original on file with the Office of the Register
of Deeds of Pampanga, by the Deputy Register of Deeds. There is a further certification with
regard to the Pampango translation of the document of extrajudicial partition which was
issued by the Archives division, Bureau of Records Management of the Department of
General Services.
Documents which affect real property, in order that they may bind third parties, must
be recorded with the appropriate Register of Deeds. The documents in question, being
certified as copies of originals on file with the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, can be said to
be found in the proper custody. Clearly, therefore, the first two (2) requirements of the
"ancient document rule" were met.
As to the last requirement that the document must on its face appear to be genuine,
petitioners did not present any conclusive evidence to support their allegation of falsification
of the said documents. They merely alluded to the fact that the lack of signatures on the first
two (2) pages could have easily led to their substitution. We cannot uphold this surmise
absent any proof whatsoever. As held in one case, a contract apparently honest and lawful on
its face must be treated as such and one who assails the genuineness of such contract must
present conclusive evidence of falsification.
Moreover, the last requirement of the "ancient document rule" that a document must
be unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion refers to the extrinsic quality
of the document itself. The lack of signatures on the first pages, therefore, absent any
alterations or circumstances of suspicion cannot be held to detract from the fact that the
documents in question, which were certified as copied of the originals on file with the
Register of Deeds of Pampanga, are genuine and free from any blemish or circumstances of
suspicion.
The documents in question are "ancient documents" as envisioned in Sec. 22 of Rule
132 of the Rules of Court. Further proof of their due execution and authenticity is no longer
required. Having held that the documents in question are private writings which are more
than thirty (30) years old, come from the proper repository thereof, and are unblemished by
any alteration or circumstances of suspicion, there is no further need for these documents to
fulfill the requirements of the 1903 Notarial Law. Hence, the other contentions of the
petitioners that the documents do not fulfill the mandatory requirements of the Notarial
Law and that the proper person or public official was not presented to testify on his
certification of the documents in question, need not be resolved as they would no longer serve
any purpose.